Dismissed

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Krishna Dist and Anr. v. Prl Secy, M a and U D Dept., Hyd and 5 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2024WP/7419/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Director of Town and Country Planning's order directing them to approach the competent authority for layout sanction. The Court held that since the village was merged with VGTMUDA, it was the competent authority. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach CRDA.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach CRDA for layout sanction if cause still subsists; No order as to costs.

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Krishna… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

.“I
PRESENT I ^ .
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI^v^^S^^

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7419 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Son of Sri Kutumba Rao, Aged 48 years, Occupation; Business, Resident of 11/118, 1"'Ward, Gudivada Krishna District.

¶8

Smt. Pedamallu Lakshmi Kumari, Wife of Sri Anjaneyulu, Aged 39w. years. Occupation; House wife. Resident of 11/118, 1®* Ward Gudivada Krishna District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali &, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (V.G.T.M.U.D.A.), Represented by its Secretary, Vijayawada.

¶13

The Director, Town & Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh, II Floor, Maitri Vihar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Regional Deputy Director of Town & Country Planning,^79-02-04/1 Tilak Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶15

Sirivelpur Gram Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, Gudivada mandal, Krishna District.

¶16

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Gudivada Mandal-cum' Special officer, Sirivelpur Gram Panchayat, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna L/isirici.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

■»

¶19

Pstition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings^ofthe respondent in Lr.Roc.No. 14270/2012/R-2 dated 07.02.2013 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the same; and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners dated 10.03.2012 for grant of layout sanction in respect of the lands in R.S. No. 9/1A & 10/1 to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents situate in Serivelpur Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013fWPMP. NO: 9318 OF 2013)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the application the petitioners dated 10.03.2012 for grant of layout sanction in respect of the lands in R.S. No. 9/1 A& 10/1 to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents situate in Serivelpur Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T. C. D. SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3, & 4 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : SRI M. MANOHAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.7419 OF 2013

¶27

Between:

¶28

Pedamallu Anjane5rulu, S/o Sri Kutumba Rao, Aged 48 years, Occupation ; Business, Resident of 11/118, 1*^ Wards, Gudivada, Krishna District and another. ... Petitioners

¶29

And

¶30

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Ss Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and five others. .. Respondents

¶31

Counsel for the petitioners Sri T.C.D.Sekhar Counsel for respondents GP for Municipal Administration and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, Standing Counsel

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Assailing the proceedings of Director of Town and Country Planning vide Lr.Roc.No.l4270/2012/R-2, dated 07.02.2013, whereby the authority directed the petitioners to approach^the competent authority, the above writ petition is filed.

¶34

V V

¶35

Page 2 of 4

¶36

SRS, J W.P.No.7419 of 2013

¶37

Heard Sri R.Lakshmikar, learned - counsel representing Sri T.C.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners^andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent Nos.l, 3 St 4.

¶38

As seen from the material available on record, petitioner made application seeking layout to the Special Officer,^Gram Panchayat, Serivelpur Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. However, learned Special Officer of Gram^Panchayat delayed to place the matter before Panchayat meeting. Later, forwarded the same to the Regional Deputy Director^ofTown& Country Planning, Rajahmundry. The proposal was received^on 29.06.2012, after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.227, M.A. & U.D. Department, dated 21.06.2012.

¶39

By G.O.Ms.No.227, M.A. & U.D. Department, dated 21.06.2012, the Gram Panchayat, Serivelpur Village^wasmerged with VGTMUDA. The Director of Town & Country Planning, by the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, directed the petitioners to approach the competent authority i.e.^VGTMUDA (presently CRD A). The learned counsel for the petitioners^would submit that due to delay on the part of Panchayat Secretary, petitioners shall not be punished.

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

SRSJ W.P.No.7419 of 2013

¶42

¶43

However, at the time of receipt of proposal to the Director of Town & Countiy Planning, the Serivelp ur Gram Panchayat was merged with VGTMUDA. Once the village is comes under the purview of VGTMUDA, the competent authority to^sanction lay out is VGTMUDA. Hence, this Court does not find any merits m the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority i.e. CRDA seeking layout if the cause still subsists. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall

¶46

Sdl- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

OneCCto Sri T. C. D. Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri M. Manohar Reddy, (SC for Municipality^[OPUC

¶51

Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn and Urban Development,^High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶52

Three C.D. Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.7419 of 2013

^ Oi=
ep
•S'A.
0\i
I 2 D SEP 2024 m J
^'^3^Spi»

¶59

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Krishna Dist and Anr. v. Prl Secy, M a and U D Dept., Hyd and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pedamallu Anjaneyulu, Krishna Dist and Anr. v. Prl Secy, M a and U D Dept., Hyd and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, Vs the The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Gunasekhar Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alle Prabha Nagi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tenneti Meenakshi Rajasekhar, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Rapeti Nookaraju, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Y. Nagendra Prasad Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.